Sunday, November 07, 2010

Tear jerk

OBAMA: The reason we’ve got a unparalleled standard of living in the history of the world is because we’ve got a free market that is dynamic and entrepreneurial, and that free market has to be nurtured and cultivated. And there’s no doubt that when you had the financial crisis on Wall Street, the bonus controversies, the battle around health care, the battle around financial reform, and then you had BP -- you just had a successive set of issues in which I think business took the message that, well, gosh, it seems like we may be always painted as the bad guy.

Move on over, Old Yeller!

CRYING UNCLE: Obama explains how he plans to help correct this grievous injustice:

And so I’ve got to take responsibility in terms of making sure that I make clear to the business community as well as to the country that the most important thing we can do is to boost and encourage our business sector and make sure that they’re hiring. And so we do have specific plans in terms of how we can structure that outreach.

Now, keep in mind over the last two years, we’ve been talking to CEOs constantly. And as I plan for my trip later this week to Asia, the whole focus is on how are we going to open up markets so that American businesses can prosper, and we can sell more goods and create more jobs here in the United States. And a whole bunch of corporate executives are going to be joining us so that I can help them open up those markets and allow them to sell their products.

Comments

This must owe to how stinking, rotten the oligarchs have gotten. They can't even tolerate a little faux-populism at their expense, no matter how emphatically Uncle Barack winks and nods. They can't stop gorging. Every need must be gratified. They require abject submission, with Obama as the people's proxy.

There is an up side. They are getting close to going too far even in a country as apathetic and easily distracted as this one. The left really needs to start organizing.

On the off chance you haven't heard about our new governor here in New York, here's what he takes to be the appropriate balance between labor and business, according to the New York Times:

"Andrew M. Cuomo will mount a presidential-style permanent political campaign to counter the well-financed labor unions he believes have bullied previous governors and lawmakers into making bad decisions. He will seek to transform the state’s weak business lobby into a more formidable ally, believing that corporate leaders in New York have virtually surrendered the field to big labor."

And the Working Families Party was barraging me with what seemed to be hourly emails and calls in support of this guy.

Or, maybe, they do get it. Maybe the really do know and understand that they've got class interests.

Maybe we can come to a place where we can finally admit that capitalist liberals are only "progressive" so long as it's about identity and vague tolerances.

One thing I like about this site is that the host differentiates between different kinds of liberals. He understands that they're not all wealthy, clueless scumbags.

I got some of these people in my family and, though they're doing ok, they're not rich, and they're certainly not of the class Obama is speaking to in the quoted passage. Nor do they identify with that class. Most people like them are currently very disillusioned with Obama and this shit's not going to do down easy. It's almost like Obama has been instructed to kill every last remnant of hope in the liberal base, which is a good thing, though quite hard to understand, from a strategic standpoint. What ARE these fuckers up to now?

Or is it that he really is so subservient, he actually just goes overboard on his own?

Maybe we can come to a place where we can finally admit that capitalist liberals are only "progressive" so long as it's about identity and vague tolerances.

Totally agreed. That's why they launch into such hysterics and posturing when it comes to cosmetic/media-hyped race and gender transgressions--because that's the primary way they differentiate themselves from their right-wing counterparts. It's a shibboleth, and the more furious their denunciations, the more clearly they cement their identification with the group.

As a wise man said: "I tell college audiences, a gender, racial or ethnic slur gets you upset, reality doesn't get you upset."

If I was unclear, I'm sorry. What I meant by "capitalist liberals" was exactly that.

I didn't mean to convey that a wage earning worker who identifies as a liberal was precisely the same as the sort of person who is a capitalist but can't stand conservatives because they're icky on social issues.

Scarlett Johansson (as an example) has the same class interests as Sarah Palin. What differs between them are their opinions about "race and gender transgressions," to quote John.

Scarlett Johansson no more labors to change the constitution of society than Sarah Palin. (Or, maybe even less so, in fact. Palin, for all that she needs to crib on foreign policy, is remarkably savvy about motivating angry people. Give her power, and she might be able to use it and the law to genuinely change a few things, especially with regard to resource extraction and what's left of Social Security.)

I dunno'. I was kind of hoping that we could work together without hurling "edgy" insults at one another. I don't like to make a big production out of it, but "Don't be an unthinking asshole towards people you want to work with" seems like it should be part of Activism 101.

I guess your meaning would have been clear from the beginning had I read carefully enough. Thanks for your patience.

At the same time, I do think there is differentiation even among capitalist liberals with respect to things like the environment, jobs and corporate influence in government. Part of it has to do with their self-conception as wonderful, caring people. The other has to do with recognizing that a certain level of social order and peace is required for the full enjoyment of privilege.

Generally, however, I agree that conventional liberalism among the wealthy has dissolved into identity politics.

Yeah, I'm with Duncan and ms_xeno here. I don't understand the either/or of class/identity politics that gets bandied around sometimes by leftists.

For the example in question, the discourse degenerates not so much because someone correctly laments the gratuitous and obvious sexism of the insults in the video, but because so many respondents dig in their heels about how insignificant it is.

You'll get no argument from me that for some, liberalism begins and ends more or less with identity politics. That doesn't mean that the concerns that constitute those politics are invalid. Only that their concerns are too narrow.

It doesn't matter that [Obama] sides with destruction of the Palestinians, and sides with the embargo. It doesn't matter that he turns his back on 100 million people and won't even campaign in minority areas. It doesn't matter than he wants a bigger military budget, and an imperial foreign policy supporting various adventures of the Bush administration. It doesn't matter that he's for the death penalty, which is targeted at minorities. But if you say one thing that isn't PC, you get their attention. I tell college audiences, a gender, racial or ethnic slur gets you upset, reality doesn't get you upset.

Nader's tin ear on these things has not served the left at all well. It would work better to dignify the concerns of the 'college audience' and then demonstrate the larger conclusions they lead to if you think them through.

Typing only for myself, I tend to see liberal attitudes regarding social tolerances as so much dross. Which doesn't prevent me from simultaneously understanding that changing how people understand identity is nonetheless very important to a significant number of persons who are at least nominally my allies.

Where we differ, I think, is precisely in perspective. I don't see how changing topical identity attitudes will on its own fundamentally alter how one class preys on the rest of us, how its members use the state to suppress and prevent dissent, how that states defines and enforces property, or how its military is blatantly employed to crush the opposition of those foreigners with enough gall to actively resist.

In fact, as more and more corporations and states embrace those tolerances, they become in fact a way to keep liberals in the fold, be providing them with a social and working environment which suits their worldview, but which does not otherwise alter their place in the various economic and social hierarchies. This strengthens those hierarchies, allowing them to contract and retain "creative" personnel.

It keeps them placated.

Which is not to suggest that we'd be necessarily better served by a crude, homophobic, racist, male dominated state serving the interests of crudely homophobic, patriarchal and racist companies.

I'm only trying to see capitalist liberals as clearly as possible. From my point of view, their liberalism is secondary, or even tertiary. Their fundamental identity is as well off members of ruling and managerial classes. They haven't challenged the structure of society, because they benefit from it. Changing the tolerances for a few more hitherto verboten identities doesn't alter the structure of social arrangements. It makes them stronger, because it purchases loyalty on the cheap. (Which is also precisely my rejection of liberal and capitalist feminism - since it trades out "equality of wages and power" for the maintenance of an otherwise crushing system of control, as long as more persons with lady parts get to share in the spoils.)

I don't see how changing topical identity attitudes will on its own fundamentally alter how one class preys on the rest of us, how its members use the state to suppress and prevent dissent, how that states defines and enforces property, or how its military is blatantly employed to crush the opposition of those foreigners with enough gall to actively resist.

Well, even if I believed that every struggle worth pursuing had to 'on its own' justify itself in relation to class struggle and struggle against state authority -- which I don't -- I would say that racism, homo-hatred and sexism are very clearly strategies for dividing people against each other and channeling class rage into serving the state and its corporate owners. i think its fair to say that adherence of southern and working class whites to the Republican Party is predicated almost entirely on the extent to which Republicans nakedly pander to their prejudices.

It follows, then, that the task of dividing people is made more difficult when those group conflicts are resolved or mitigated. I think it's also self-evident that left-wing queers, feminists, blacks, latinos etc will be more inclined to engage in active class struggle alongside each other if they remain civil with one another. In my view, the guy who casually denigrates female genitalia during a political discussion is the one who erects the barrier, not the feminist who calls him out on it. Overall, I think these conflicts need to be resolved more quickly and civilly when they arise, but we are getting to a point where they shouldn't come up at all. I mean, I can't believe the shit women in particular still put up with in terms of day-to-day hate speech and shaming and I am actually surprised that they are not generally more vocal about it.

While i think it is unfortunate that we live in a meritocracy, I think it would be unreasonable to expect minority people and women to accept second class status within the meritocratic framework.

I do agree with you that there is a downside to this, as you say, the purchase of loyalty on the cheap, and one other thing which you did not mention, which is the way feminism is increasingly deployed on behalf of subjugating the Muslim world. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the challenge of the left, assuming, perhaps too optimistically, that any of this struggle is won with arguments, is not to negate or discount identity politics as a whole but to illustrate the ways in which it is limited and also corrupted by power for powers own ends. It seems to me that attacking its adherents is another variation on misdirected anger that gets the people squabbling with each other instead of fighting their real enemies.

While i think it is unfortunate that we live in a meritocracy, I think it would be unreasonable to expect minority people and women to accept second class status within the meritocratic framework.

The above was poorly worded, since it implies something you didn't say. I guess, what I mean is that I don't think folks engaged in fighting to take race, age, sex, ethnicity and sexual orientation etc out of the merit equation, are necessarily being bought off or, worse, actually endorsing class inequality.

Excellent, excellent point, Jack. I'd like to add that the concept of "tolerance" has been Newspeak'ed out of existence. My experience has been that "tolerance" means "getting along with people you agree with." We didn't really need a word for that, but it was very important that we get rid of "tolerance" as a word for "getting along with people you DISagree with."

So, people rag on the fundies for being "intolerant" of Muslims, Jews, Mormons, etc. And people praise the more theologically liberal Christians (and Muslims, Wiccans, etc.) for being "tolerant" of other religions. But these religious folk openly state that their "tolerance" is predicated on the idea that "we all worship the same God in different ways." In my experience, they are extremely hateful toward atheists (and toward me personally,) because they have the same principles as the fundies: get along with people you agree with, and crap on everyone else. They have just defined "agree with" more broadly.

Since American culture cannot have any real principles, any kind of social change is established piecemeal- as you point out, social feminism doesn't challenge the system, it just lets a few women get a slice of the spoils. (This kind of self-indulgent feminism is articulated most disgustingly by Ms. Magazine in general, and Alice Miller's column for it in particular.) You can't say, "hey, the Bible is wrong, intolerance is wrong, let's just start respecting people who are different." Instead, MLK has to preach about how much he loves the Bible, and how true the Bible is, and how the Bible says you have to respect Black people. And then respect for women, gays, transgendered people, etc. are all separate battles *against the problems caused by the same Bible*. (To MLK's credit, he did have a broad vision and real principles, and genuinely challenged the system, but history has predictably whitewashed that out.)

P.S. The most galling thing about this is how Christians always say, "oh, Christianity isn't a force for evil- it's a force for good! Just look at the civil rights movement! Where were the atheists, if atheism is so good?" But, of course, the problem is that Christianity's role in American society is so powerful and destructive that *atheists are not allowed at the table at all.* Any effective challenge to the social problems caused by Christianity always comes from Christianity itself, because anti-atheist bigotry automatically silences any atheistic opposition. And I think this ties in with your point: "feminism", as it's currently defined, is permitted because it presents no threat to the system. Anything that does threaten the system is "Communism" or "socialism" or "conspiracy theories," and thus a priori can never be discussed.

And Metafalcon: you can't just outright say the bible's wrong and be done with because, well, while you can indeed share your opinion, forcing your views on to others is rather irrational. As for MLK and the bible, maybe he just had a different interpretation than you did. I for one agree with Lewis Black's opinion on all of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

Nader's tin ear on these things has not served the left at all well. It would work better to dignify the concerns of the 'college audience' and then demonstrate the larger conclusions they lead to if you think them through.

I don't really think he has a tin ear. That term usually describes people who don't understand the other's POV at all. Nader understands it, I'm sure. He just chooses to reject it.

To me, the whole "Uncle Tom" incident was a classic case of Lose-Lose. Nader made the remark knowing full well that any number of people who normally ignored him would immediately respond as if they'd been shocked with a cattle prod. It was a bid for attention. It worked. I don't think much of him for it, and I don't think much of the people who rose to his bait, either.

...I'm only trying to see capitalist liberals as clearly as possible. From my point of view, their liberalism is secondary, or even tertiary. Their fundamental identity is as well off members of ruling and managerial classes. They haven't challenged the structure of society, because they benefit from it. Changing the tolerances for a few more hitherto verboten identities doesn't alter the structure of social arrangements. It makes them stronger, because it purchases loyalty on the cheap. (Which is also precisely my rejection of liberal and capitalist feminism - since it trades out "equality of wages and power" for the maintenance of an otherwise crushing system of control, as long as more persons with lady parts get to share in the spoils.)

You realize that plenty of women who've been treated like shit by men in various "reformist" or "alternative" social movements can make similar arguments about the way their male comrades act and think, right?

IOW, a group that's already part of the dominant class/gender/orientation/race in mainstream life promises a brave new world for all out on the metaphoric frontier. But it becomes apparent in a big hurry to others that their would-be comrades have brought a lot of mainstream baggage along with them.

Being an atheist means I can't voice my opinion. If I say that the Bible is wrong, I'm "forcing my views on others" and therefore being "irrational."

To be a "militant" Muslim, you have to blow up the WTC. To be a "militant" Christian, you have to blow up an abortion clinic. To be a "militant" atheist, you have to open your mouth.

Sorry, Jenny, but when Christians wear a cross, they're saying the Bible is right. I'm saying the Bible is wrong. Not just factually wrong- morally wrong. Evil. An abomination. The Bible is as evil as Main Kampf. When Netanyahu talks about the Palestinians and the "threat" they present to Israel, he calls them "Amalekites." Thus the evil of the Bible persists to this day. It's not my opinion- it's reality. Deal with it.

The Bible depicts God as ordering genocide over and over again. That's evil. Moses is evil. I'm getting a little sick of all this talk of "the Bible isn't evil- some people just have a twisted interpretation." Words mean things. In this case, they mean that Moses is evil, and everyone who celebrates Moses is celebrating evil.

That, in my opinion, is a big part of the reason why our culture is such a wasteland. People MUST say that Moses is good. But he's clearly evil. God obviously doesn't exist. But you MUST believe that he does. So how do people deal with it? They tell atheists that it's inappropriate of them to even bring up the subject. They tie themselves into knots with all kinds of relative-truth arguments about "interpretation." NOBODY jumps through these hoops with anything else. Nobody struggles to prove that "Weekend at Bernies" is a treatise on entomology. Nobody tries to argue that Moby Dick is really about Bigfoot. Because only with the Bible do you have to deny the obvious. It's like the Illuminatus Trilogy. We've been taught that we will be punished if we see the fnords, so we'll do anything to deny that the fnords are obviously there.

And if you're, say, C. S. Lewis or Tim Layahe, you can write a book in which Christianity is clearly right, and depict the atheists as being a bunch of ninnies for not seeing that God is walking around in the form of a lion. Because reality clearly is a thumb in the eye of Christianity every single day you live in it. So, there's a cottage industry of escapist books that let Christians live in worlds where Christianity is clearly right, and in those books they make fun of the silly atheists over and over again.

Do you want to see the future? Centuries from now, people will be saying that Hitler was a great moral teacher, and that all those anti-Semite Nazis aren't *real* Nazis. No *real* Nazi would be an anti-Semite. All those hateful people have merely "twisted the moral message of Mein Kampf." Oh, and Hitler will have his own breakfast cereal, just like Vlad the Impaler has Count Chocula. It will be called Choco-fuehrer.

I'm sick of all this discussion of how Christianity is somehow a moral and gentle religion. Who would Jesus waterboard? Why, all non-Christians, of course. This is not just some fundie "twisting" of the Bible. Jesus says that all non-Christians will burn in hell.

For that matter, hasn't NPR heard of the Flood? Bush probably believes that God drowned the whole world. Maybe that's why he likes to drown Muslims?

While we're at it, has anyone here read Alice Miller''s article for Ms. on "cunt women" and "tit women"? Basically, she believes that overweight Black women are real-life Mammies ("tit women") who have an inherent disposition to nurture people. She described a trip to the airport in which she was overjoyed to see "tit women" serving food in the food court, because she knew they had found their proper place in society.

What does one have to do with the other? How does pointing out that capitalist, liberal feminism is afflicted with the same moral sclerosis that afflicts all expressions of capitalist liberalism mean or imply that "alternative" movements don't have their problems with gender and bias?

I'm not suggesting one doesn't exist, by critiquing the other. I've taken aim at capitalist liberalism, in the context of social tolerances. I haven't set out to disavow or deny the persistent "treat[ing] like shit" of women.

Again, see what I mean? Jenny simply refuses to engage with me logically. If I speak, I'm "ranting." Merely by expressing an opinion, I am "forcing my views on others."

Her problem is simple. Moses is obviously a Hitler-like figure. She can never, ever admit that. So, she simply declares that I am irrational for criticising Moses, that it is inappropriate for me to speak, that I cannot be reasoned with, etc. It's the same old defense mechanisms. If we were talking about Reagan's genocides instead of Moses', I would probably be dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist."

Obviously "anti-war religious folk" will have a range of opinions about this. Followers of the God of Moses will hate me for daring to criticize their favorite genocidalist, regardless of their stance on war. Anti-war Buddhists and Hindus might agree with me that Moses is evil. Frankly, I don't feel a need to "go swimmingly" with apologists for genocide. (I am, however, continually amused by their conflation of "religion" with worship of their evil "god," just as they use the generic term "God" to refer to the particular deity they worship. It's a legitimation tactic, you see. If people just called it "Yahweh," it would be a little too obvious that they were worshiping a very specific, ancient tribal demon. And if they did that, they'd sound like an idiot when they nattered about how "all religions worship Yahweh," etc. So much better to disguise such petty provincialisms by saying "all religions worship the same God.")

Jenny, if you want me to take you seriously, just tell me that you reject Moses and the God of the Old Testament. Otherwise, I frankly see no more reason to debate with you than with a neo-Nazi.

I said that you can't just come right out and say that the Bible is wrong vis-a-vis racism. If you want to fight racism, you have to find some way to twist the Bible into a pro-civil rights tract. Otherwise, people won't listen to you.

Jenny then appeared and told me to quit ramming my beliefs (i.e., that the Bible is wrong) down other peoples' throats.

She thinks I'm being inappropriate.

Because I'm opposed to the Bible's racism.

She also seems to be very offended by the fact that I am opposed to genocide.

Jenny, what is, exactly, your belief vis-a-vis Moses? Was he acting on God's instructions? Or is the Bible actually the worst sort of blasphemy?

You've said that Moses is a Nazi. Do you think the God of Abraham is a Nazi? Is Jesus a Nazi?

Look, folks, I realize that Jenny isn't here for a serious conversation. She can't have a serious conversation, because if she did, the whole house of cards would come tumbling down. So, she just swears at me and tells me I have no right to speak, and threatens me with the dread specter of having no religious (translation: Christian) friends if I don't lose my principled stand against genocide. That's exactly why I ask these questions: I know she can't answer. And when she doesn't give serious answers, it just proves that Christianity is a moral and intellectual wasteland. It's just adverporn.

No one with real principles- no one whose religion was more than adverporn- would have suggested that being popular is more important than being princpled.

No one with real principles would just throw off a line like "Fine, he's a nazi. fucking hell." Instead, she would have explained, in all seriousness, that yes, Moses was evil, and then she would have explained how you can believe that Moses was a Nazi and still be a Christian. And then, I would have stood corrected, and I would have learned something new and important.

Look, folks, I realize that Jenny isn't here for a serious conversation.

That's a statement that generalizes -- Jenny seems to comment here solely to provoke a reaction (which is odd since I've occasionally seen hits generated by her approvingly citing things she's read here). As long as she's intent on trolling like that, it's best to just ignore it.

What does one have to do with the other? How does pointing out that capitalist, liberal feminism is afflicted with the same moral sclerosis that afflicts all expressions of capitalist liberalism mean or imply that "alternative" movements don't have their problems with gender and bias?

The trouble comes when the "pointer" uses "liberal feminism" as a catchall for all feminism. It's not.

I'm not suggesting one doesn't exist, by critiquing the other. I've taken aim at capitalist liberalism, in the context of social tolerances. I haven't set out to disavow or deny the persistent "treat[ing] like shit" of women.

And in the context of this discussion, a person who pooh-poohs a simple request for respect from a feminist as being a mere affectation of "liberal feminism" runs the risk of looking like (to put it mildly) a first-rate jackass.

Maybe it's too much work for some people to avoid using "edgy" gender insults in social settings. To me, it's generally not. If I start getting impassioned defenses from would-be allies who assure me that they're "only words," I'm going to look at those would-be allies with considerable skepticism. And by extension, I'm going to look at their cause with considerable skepticism, especially if I'm unfamiliar with it. Why would I (if I still considered myself a liberal) want to leave familiar ground just to get ramped-up "hipster" misogyny from would-be revolutionaries-- if I could get plenty of that just my remaining with the devil I already know?

I'm not always crazy about the liberal sisterhood, either. Shit. I backed the hell out of Violet Socks' place in a hurry when the faithful informed me that the patriarchy had brainwashed me into disliking Clinton II or some condescending garbage like that. (As if I hadn't spent years and tons of bandwidth flipping well-deserved scorn at Clinton I and all his successor wankers and tossers, too.) But at the same time I get why so many of them are angry about supposedly trivial concerns. When "trivia" piles up, it shapes the culture. It does have force and it does influence actions. I'd be nuts to pretend that I've never noticed this, both IRL and online.

My point, Crow, is that while there's a lot wrong with liberalism, I don't have a problem with avoiding identity-based slurs and insults when dealing with people I want to work with. When I encounter people who can't be arsed to behave like adults in this supposedly "trivial" matter, I tend to have serious doubts about how much help they're going to be to me when we try and move beyond what they so callously dismiss as being "trivial."

It's a popular sport in some circles for name-callers to scoff, "Oh, you get so worked up just because I say [expletive] and [expletive] when they're only words. But somehow it never cuts the other way for the "edgy" name-callers. They can't suppress their own egos long enough to think, Well, I can find some less obnoxious way to vent my anger next time. Just so people I want on my side don't get so upset. After all, they're "only words."

You claim that this sort of thing keeps people placated. I'm more inclined to argue that it keeps them agitated, fearful and disengaged. It's at worst a blatant push for power from the name-caller ("Ha ha ha! I control all the terms here and if you don't like it you can leave.") and at best it functions as static. It drowns out what the name-caller claims are noble intentions.

Amen. I don't understand why on a certain collection of left-wing blogs we keep having to travel this circle, as if the biggest barrier to class struggle/worst thing about liberals is their kvetching over anti-gay and anti-woman insults. And if people like Jack do want to keep at this, it might freshen things up to use racial identity, racial slurs, and race-based discrimination as the trivial concerns example.

Social tolerances keep liberals placated, in their places in the hierarchy. Not slurs. I'm not posting quantum theory, here. A liberal can be bought off, on the cheap, if his working and social environment mirrors his social tolerances.

Sure, they might react negatively to knuckle draggers who also hold position within their hierarchy.

I never said they became zombies.

I'm suggesting that social tolerances are enough for liberals, when it comes to the constitution of society.

Because they're liberals. They're not secret leftists, waiting for the moment of social liberation. Their decent attitudes are veneer.

I don't see that Jack is even coming close to making the argument y'all are seemingly attributing to him (or at the least tarring him with indirectly), in which he's the spokesman for people who demand the right to toss around gender/sexual/racial expletives with abandon and say that anyone who objects is just being hypersensitive. And the points he actually is making strike me as thoughtful, considered, and worthwhile.

(As are many of the points being made in response, by the way....I just think they're mis-targeted in this case.)

I'm not suggesting racism, sexism or other identity biases are trivial. I'm suggesting that liberals can be kept from challenging the structure of society itself, if they are given social spaces which provide them with a veneer of identity tolerance.

Put a capitalist liberal in a company that has all the right tolerances, and that liberal remains exactly what he or she already is - a person who is fine with the economic and political constitution of society.

Give that liberal a "struggle" against homophobia in his workplace and he might facebook up an opinion, complain to HR, express his contempt for knuckle draggers at the ballot box, and wear a ribbon.

But he's not going to work to fundamentally undermine, alter or transform the larger social relations, especially when those relations otherwise benefit him and his own class interest.

And once he gets his knuckle dragger free workplace, forget about it. He's a capitalist, a liberal. That's as far as he's going to go...

What a bunch of Politically Correct pap on display here -- embarrassing, really. Especially given that this is supposedly a serious discussion and not a satire of spineless, ineffectual liberals and progressives who care more about manners than they do about social change/justice.

I agree with Jack in everything he posted above, and those who say he's being a bigot or hateful, you folks suffer a lack of imagination, probably born in a feeling of victimhood, an identity as victim.

Find self-sufficiency and you will find it in yourself to see humor and utility in all sorts of "insults."

Insult is effective. You can pretend it isn't. But most of you who are riding Jack's back, I've seen you use insults too. Remember that and remember to consider it deeply when you talk about hypocrisy, or when you ride Jack's back.

All I'm trying to say is: just because Jack considers this kind of thing a mere "veneer," not everyone does. Furthermore, not everyone who considers it something else is a "liberal."

As I said about thirty posts ago: I don't consider simple human consideration and values outside the combines of liberalism to be incompatible with one another.

Oh, and I worked in one of those places Jack describes. I made the most money I'm ever likely to make in this lifetime, and I quit. Because it sucked rocks. It drove me so batshit that I ended up on anti-depressants. It also wasn't anywhere near as "tolerant" as its overlords liked to pretend, BTW. But that takes us into a whole sidebar that's not really necessary to describe at the moment.

So Jack is mistaken if he thinks nobody ever walks out even after they get some of what they wanted. For some people, it's sufficient. For others, it's not.

I never wrote "nobody ever walks out." Why do you keep attributing to me meaning, motive and language I have not used?

And I don't know how you can characterize my use of the word "veneer" in the manner you've chosen. I have not stated that bias (or the mitigation of it) is only and merely veneer, under all circumstances and in every case. I've argued that for a specific type of person - liberal capitalists - social tolerances are a veneer. As long as the appearance of tolerance is satisfied, they cannot be counted on to struggle or agitate for social change.

Nor does the use of the term "veneer" imply dishonesty or insincerity. I mean only to imply that the commitment to struggle, justice or amelioration is shallow. It's thin. It does not extend to capitalism or liberalism itself.

So I guess I have to be very, very explicit. I do not and have not meant to imply that a person being bullied, tormented or discriminated against for his or her appearance, race, gender, sexual orientation et cetera does not experience that torment and discrimination deeply, or honestly.

I'm not suggesting that a person who is concerned with bias, be it personal or structural, is trifling with trivialities.

I have only stated that capitalist liberals (and yes, this includes liberal capitalist feminists) can be counted on to seek those environments where their own social tolerances are predominant, and to account for these tolerances as a reflection of their own enlightenment. That they are capitalists means, first and foremost, that they will not challenge the structure of social relations themselves, so that their social tolerances do not of their own indicate any demonstrable commitment to justice, social transformation or the reconstitution of society.

Okay, John. I don't want this to start going around in circles. The whole argument about Atheism and religion was dizzying enough, and I'm only on my second cup of coffee.

Probably in Jack's shoes, I wouldn't tell a liberal feminist that she's not committed to justice. I don't believe that's necessarily true, for starters. Especially once you're talking about women who pay attention to the state of the world all year 'round, not just when elections are going on. It's precisely that which makes it so damn hard for me to endure the Hillary worshiping and similar shit in feminist spaces. It's nothing to me but prizing personality over structure, and throwing good money after bad. It's high-level cognitive dissonance and it sincerely hurts me to watch it unfold time after time.

But I wouldn't say to such a woman, "You aren't doing shit to help anyone." I'd prefer saying, "You can do more if you let x, y, and z just fucking go." If I thought there was a prayer that she'd listen to me.

I have only stated that capitalist liberals (and yes, this includes liberal capitalist feminists) . . . are capitalists first and foremost, that they will not challenge the structure of social relations themselves, so that their social tolerances do not of their own indicate any demonstrable commitment to justice, social transformation or the reconstitution of society.

I don't think any of those of us who, Oxtrot has, in his self-sufficient and authentically revolutionary way, called twats, would argue with this. But you are being disingenuous in claiming that you are being credited with assertions you never made. This discussion forked off onto feminism by way of a link to discussion of a video -- which was presented as evidence against 'capitalist liberal feminism' in which some feminists (who may or may not own capital), took issue with a female character being called a 'stupid cunt' and 'sad twat.'

'Painful', you called it, Jack, and I think it's safe to say, you meant the feminist part of the discussion, not the dogged insistence by some of the guys-- probably liberals themselves, and probably on easy terms with capitalism -- that calling someone a cunt isn't problematic from a feminist perspective.

The appropriate response from the dudes in the discussion would have been -- yeah, the choice of language is regrettable, they're kids and will probably outgrow it. Otherwise. . .[substantive remarks here].

I reckon the feminists would have been content to move on to something else at that point.

The question is why do the feminists in the discussion and not the people arguing with them embody capitalist liberalism?

"Shoes", believe it or not. I think I added that to the spam block list (since about 90% of the comment spam I get is shoe-related), but inadvertently, since I always try to make sure the spam phrases are much more specific (not something that's likely to come up in regular conversation). I've rescued your comment from the spam pile.

Your problem is that you assume to much. Please start there. I try not to assume. I ask questions. You and Ms. Xeno have been arguing with assumptions, not what I've actually written. If you'd taken the time to ask, or just read what I wrote - we probably wouldn't have any misunderstanding.

Ms. Xeno,

I'll say or write what I observe, not what I should (according to you) write on account of what a hypothetical person might or might not believe about me.

What I continue to type, Ms Xeno, is that your point of view isn't actually describing what I've written.

You keep arguing with points I haven't made, assuming perspectives and opinions I don't have.

Nor did I suggest that you're trying to get me to "stop saying what [I] want." I stated, again, that I'm not going to tailor and self-edit my observations as if a hypothetical person might disagree with me.

But, Miguel, you're content to call me a liar ("disingenuous"), so I know you don't really argue in good faith.

I am arguing in good faith. I was wrong to guess at your motives and I apologize. The point stands, though, that the introduction of the Crooked Timber link and your remarks about it imply something other than what you later said your claims have been all along.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you took from the video. So maybe if you stated exactly why it was 'painful' and why you implicitly endorsed it as an example of capitalist feminism, I can stop making assumptions.

You can stop attributing meaning to me already. I don't mean, imply or mean to suggest that identity politics are "inimical to class struggle." I mean only - again and again and again - that liberal capitalists embrace social tolerances as a gloss upon their liberal capitalism. That a liberal accepts gays or women with power means only that. It doesn't mean that the liberal can be counted on to address power itself. The liberal capitalist cannot be counted on to address power or inequity precisely because the liberal accepts disparity, inequity and capitalist relations on principle and in practice.

If that ("inimical...") is what you've been jousting against this whole time, you're tilting at windmills.

You haven't answered my question about what was objectionable about the Crooked Timber comment thread but no matter. When you summarize your actual views, I am in complete agreement. I will however note that your blunt-speaking ally, Oxtrot, seems to have misinterpreted you as well.

Miguel, CFO is afflicted with political Tourette's and will launch on anyone at any time for any reason, usually attacking them for the opposite of their views (see here for a knee-slapping example in which I savaged Dennis Kucinich and he responded by telling me not to blame "Rethuglicans" for my "hero taking a fall"). Like all trolls, he's best ignored.

Guys, I think the point being made here is pretty obvious. (At least, I think I've read the point correctly...)

Adverporn is popular. That's the point. That's the whole raison d'etre of adverporn.

It's particularly effective when adverporn co-opts some ostensibly virtuous activity or belief and replaces it with an easy fantasy.

For example:

It's good to be well educated. But it's a lot of effort. Creation science is porn for people who want to feel educated, but are too lazy to learn real science.

It's good to be well-educated with regard to politics. But politics is complicated and frightening. The centrism of people like Jon Stewart, filled as it is with false equivalencies, is porn for people who want to fantasize about being reasonable.

It's good to be a critical thinker. But it's painful to examine one's own biases. _Skeptic Magazine_ and _Skeptical Enquirer_ are porn for people who want to pretend to be critical thinkers.

It's good to support equality for women. But, real equality for women means you don't get to explot women. _Ms. Magazine_ is porn for women who want to pretend to be feminists, while still exploiting women. Exhibit A: Alice Miller is a "feminist." She wrote a regular column for _Ms._ In that column, she stated that the Mammy stereotype is true. Overweight Black women are "tit women" who live to nurture, and it's wonderful that they have the opportunity to fulfil their heart's desire by dishing out food in cafeterias at minimum wage.

None of this critique of Ms. is original with me. I've been hearing women complain for years that Ms. is basically Cosmo for women who think they're too smart to read Cosmo. Specifically, Ms. was routinely faulted for narrowly addressing the concerns of affluent white women.

While we're at it, Ms. engaged in a lot of casual man-bashing. That's not real feminism, either. But apparently it let the target audience pretend they were feminists, or there wouldn't have been much point in putting it in Ms.

If I were a secret mastermind of the Illuminati, and I wanted to defeat feminism, I would bankroll _Ms. Magazine._

Back when I was in college, you saw the same sort of thing. "Feminism" meant endless hair-splitting over rape. Rape was the only feminist issue ever discussed by any of my "feminist" friends. The bulk of the discussion involved hypothetical scenarios, followed by demands that you categorize the situation as "RAPE" or "NOT-RAPE." When I responded to one of these scenarios by saying, "the man was a jerk, the woman should leave him, but there's no chance of prosecuting," I was told "that's a cop-out. The important thing is, was it rape or not?" That's right- forget any question of ACTION. Planning for practical action is a cop-out. The important thing is CLASSIFICATION.

You see this sort of thing in religious debates on the Internet. You can't talk about Netanyahu's invoking Moses to justify maltreatment of the Palestinians. So instead, enormous energies are spent debating whether Osama Bin Laden is a real Muslim, whether Mormons are Christians, whether you can be a Christian and ethnically Jewish, etc. Categorization is safe, because it means nothing. Categorization is porn for people who want to fantasise that they're fearlessly grappling with big issues, but are too chicken to even know what the real issues are.

So do we get an actual link to this notorious Ms. article, Metalfalcon, or what?

As for "casual man-bashing," color me skeptical. There are way too many men out there who consider it "man-bashing" whenever a woman doesn't laud the hell out of them just for breathing. I've seen it in way more feminist spaces than I care to count.

...Categorization is porn for people who want to fantasize that they're fearlessly grappling with big issues, but are too chicken to even know what the real issues are.

Or, y'know, maybe they need to learn categorization before they understand what the real issues are. Maybe not all of us are prodigies on these complex subjects, as you apparently feel you are, or were, back in college.

[shrug]

I'm not a fan of Ms. by any means. I pretty lost interest when I figured out that they had nothing better to do than shill for the Democrats. (They ran a grudging post-election article about Winona LaDuke ten years ago only after their own readers complained en masse about how they'd snubbed her. Sadly, I think that was about the peak of their interest in U.S. 3rd Party politics.)

But Ms. is not, thankfully, the be-all and end-all of feminism. Neither are some allegedly "chicken" feminists that you once hung out with in college.

...CFO is afflicted with political Tourette's and will launch on anyone at any time for any reason, usually attacking them for the opposite of their views...

But his pearls of wisdom in this thread work much better if you imagine him as the Daddy Bunny from an old Life In Hell strip, exhorting his offspring to "Pretend you're happy and then you WILL be happy!" or something along those lines.

Will yourself to be self-sufficient and to have some self-respect and you WILL BE SELF-SUFFICIENT AND RESPECTED, you dumb stupid [gender-based expletive]!

How this sort of magical thinking dovetails with overgrown frat boys hurling juvenile insults in political settings to prove how cool they are is beyond me. But still, I'm sure that it's objectively terribly novel and revolutionary! To say otherwise would doubtless be to "wallow in victimhood," or whatever. Sign me up! I wanna' join the cool kids' table, too!

a. If I provided you with a link to Alice Miller's article, would it make any difference? I've been down this road too many times before. Your response isn't to say, "If true, this is serious, so I would appreciate a link." Instead, you seem skeptical as to whether this article exists at all. Why? What difference does it make? If it doesn't exist, you can cry victory because it doesn't exist. If it does exist, but Ms. hasn't put its early 90's content online for free for the convenience of none other than ms. xeno, you can continue to question my honesty. If it does exist, and I provide you with overwhelming proof of its existence, then no problem- you'll just declare that the article somehow doesn't count as proof. For example, "Ms. is not, thankfully, the be-all and end-all of feminism. Neither are some allegedly "chicken" feminists that you once hung out with in college."

I never said they were, ms. xeno. I am criticising Ms. magazine and Alice Miller. I was very specific about that. You agree with me that Ms. magazine has problems. And yet, you take an aversarial tone with me. Why?

b. As for "man-bashing," I've seen your argument in many different forms too many times before- from the defenders of Ms., from creationists, etc. I said there was man-bashing in Ms. The polite response, from a person with principles, would have been to say, "If true, that's troubling. Could you provide some examples?" Instead, before you even know what I'm talking about, you say you're skeptical because so many men are sexist, and OBVIOUSLY Metafalcon is a man, blah blah blah. The Christians do the same thing- instead of presenting a neutral request for examples, they immediately go on a scurrilous attack. "Well, Metafalcon, one of these days you'll realize how hollow your endless search for sex and drugs is, and then you'll need Jesus, blah blah blah." What's the point of providing you with an example? Then you would question whether I was telling the truth. And then you'd send me on a wild goose chase for proof, and when I found it, you would just declare that my examples prove nothing, because Ms. magazine isn't representative of feminism as a whole, even though I am only arguing about Ms. magazine.

I refuse to be treated like this, ms. xeno. I especially refuse to be treated like this by someone who is claiming to be a champion of gender equality. You're putting words in peoples' mouths, and you've been corrected several times, but you refuse to quit. It's not about principles for you. It's about scoring points, and smacking at perceived "enemies," *even when you claim to agree with their stated positions.* Apparently you are so eager to get into a scrap that you have to manufacture opponents where opposition doesn't exist. Why else would you be fighting me tooth and nail every step of the way, challenging me on every point, making insinuations, and demanding proof that you've already declared to be meaningless?

If even one person will second any of your arguments, I will talk to them. But not to you.

Go away. Go pat yourself on a back for your fearless efforts to smack down a man who thinks women are man-bashing just because they don't praise him for existing. Go congratulate yourself for winning an argument with your keen demands for proof. I am sure you will find the fantasy most gratifying, and it leaves the rest of us free to discuss reality.

I think my favorite Alice Walker trainwreck was her book on female genital mutilation. It was all about her travels in Africa and how FGM upset her *so much,* on her birthday no less (how dare they!) that she had to call her boyfriend long distance for *eight hours* before she felt ok again. Oh, but she got into an argument with an old woman who carried out the operations, and BOY did she do a good job of putting her in her place!

Yes, Alice, you're doing a great job. You sure did turn the tide against FGM with that argument. I'm sure you found it most gratifying.

About 95% of the book is devoted to answering the all-important question, "how does the issue of FGM make Alice Walker feel?" At the end, briefly she interviews a single anti-FGM activist. One wonders if Alice Walker's editor didn't tell her, look, feminism is about giving these women a voice, maybe you should print their views? So a token activist got shoehorned into an appendix.

You know, I just have to say one more thing. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the humor of the situation, you see.

I complain about man-bashing by Ms. Magazine.

ms. xeno doesn't ask for proof. (Proof is irrelevant, you see. It has to be. If it were relevant, there would be a danger that I might- against all odds- whip out an online copy of Ms. from 15+ years ago. And then where would she be?) No, no need for proof. She doesn't even ask for specifics. She just questions whether or not my report is accurate, or is merely sexist claptrap. The maneuver is simple: she assumes that I am a man. She declares that the reports of men are not to be trusted. After all, lots of the things men say are sexist claptrap. So why bother asking for specifics? We all know what the "MAN" is probably talking about anyway. Why bother asking the "MAN" to elaborate "his" claims further? QED, my argument is refuted.

Nope, no man-bashing here! Ms. Xeno has proven it!

Congratulations, ms xeno. You have successfully fantasised about defending the right of women to be HEARD! Just like the bumper sticker says! WOOO HOO! YOU GO SISTER!

So it's all right for you to bring past experiences to your arguments, but not for me to do so. Gotcha'. There can't be a discussion unless you control all the terms.

Meta, could you twist yourself into any more knots than you do? On one hand, you won't provide a link to the piece you've mentioned more than once now. (Now that I know that you didn't even have the right "Alice," it helps explain why I couldn't find it in the first place when I searched yesterday.) Because it won't matter. OTOH, you are angry because I won't beg you for more specific examples of what you consider "man-bashing" than I've already seen.

Your comparison of my opinions to those of Christian evangelicals is such a weird non-sequitor that I don't even want to imagine what you had on your morning cornflakes besides milk and sugar. I'm gonna' pass on even unpacking that one.

Holy Hell. You are mind-blowingly think-skinned here. Much like Crow and CFO have been elsewhere, but a lot more verbose. If debate bothers you so much, maybe you should avoid it in the future.

If you're not male, why not just say so? I've been mistaken for a dude on the 'net before, too. It's annoying, but it's easily corrected so that the discussion can move on. Is this much epic drama really necessary?

Also, reading back how much you've just typed here, I can only laugh at the idea that I've somehow silenced you just by having my own opinions.

Metafalcon, this is my blog -- please don't assume you have the right to tell anyone here to "go away".

And since this comment thread has tended toward the overly testy, let me remind everyone that the one guideline for discussion here is and always has been the Golden Rule -- or to put it another way, civil disagreement, even (or especially) when it's difficult. Please keep that in mind when you're commenting.

I have no idea how I got into the corner of (supposedly) championing the Ms. Foundation and all its works. To clarify, I pretty much feel the same way about it as somebody at another blog does about PDA denizens like Kucinich. To paraphrase: Yeah, it's got its okay moments compared to the other shit of its kind out there, but that doesn't mean that it's actually up to scratch. We could do so much better. :/

Metafalcon:
Considering the original assertion that it was Alice Miller who had written said article, I can understand how one might have been just ever-so slightly sceptical. And while I agree that ms_xeno has misstated some of what others' had previously written, I can even understand how she might be just sceptical enough to assume that someone who would actually make such an assertion about Alice Miller might be the kind who would run loose with facts about male-bashing.

Davidly, you may have a point, but the problem is that it's embedded in ms. xeno's bigotry.

"I'm skeptical- I've seen too many Black people cry 'racism.'"

"Why do you assume I'm Black? Don't you think you're being a little racist?"

"Well, if you're really White, why not just say so?"

Her initial response was to assume that I'm male, and use that to discredit me. When that backfired, she was fortunate enough to find out that I had gotten the name wrong. So, she has a new excuse. But it doesn't apply retroactively, because she didn't know at the time that I had gotten the name wrong. Now. she's graciously permitting me a chance to claim to be a woman, so that I can have my credibility back.

Ms. xeno has too many "drops" here. She's demanding that I provide a link to an article, but she's already declared that the article is irrelevant. So, why send me off on a lengthy search to dig up an old article? I simply don't think she's interested in real debate here. She has no consistent position, and is grossly misrepresenting the positions of others.

That being said, I appreciate your attempts to calm troubled waters. I'll gladly talk to you about any of this, but I refuse to waste my time with bigots who are going to twist my arguments around.

I appreciate the apology, Metafalcon, but I'd have been much happier if you'd followed the advice I gave as well rather than throwing around accusations of "bigotry" and slagging off ms xeno. If it wasn't clear, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

So please consider my prior comment a non-negotiable order from the blogmom, because that's what it is. There are plenty of places people can go to snipe at each other on the Internet, y'all, but I don't pay my eight bucks a month to have this be one of them. So keep it civil, and DON'T MAKE ME COME UP THERE.

Say Falcon, you weren't the guy who posted here were ya?:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/06/02/study-finds-female-genital-mutilation-increases-risk-that-mothers-or-their-babies-will-die-in-childbirth-by-50/

Because of your mentioning of Alice Walker's book on FGS earlier, also mentioned here:
http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker24.html

Though Barker seems to dismiss the practice as mere cultural relativism(agreeing with one critic who declared there was no harm in FGS anywhere after interviewing a Sierra Leone woman who said that FGS was empowering in her country which is found here:
http://www.arts.uregina.ca/dbfm_send/637

The point is precisely that she didn't know you got the name wrong. Unless one had been familiar with the article, one would have to assume that you were talking about Alice Miller (that's the name you used).

Now, I try to abide by the axiom "never say never", but, my god, if a person like me can pull a big, "huh!?" upon reading such an assertion about Alice Miller, then I gotta think that ms_xeno might have thought that you had a propensity to fudge facts - not confuse names.

I say you have political Tourette's because it's an accurate characterization, and it was helpful of you to offer another example with this tantrum. I call it Tourette's not only because of the infantile name-calling but because you don't seem to have the slightest concern about making sense--e.g. when you say I'm trying to "distract from" your comments, even as I specifically link to and highlight comments of yours so people can read them and judge for themselves.

I've typically ignored your tirades in the past (including your attacks on me) because that's the best way to deal with trolls, and I give the other people who participate on the blog credit for being able to (eventually) suss out who the trolls are and to ignore them as well--since attention is exactly what you crave and responding to you only serves the goal of letting you disrupt the conversation. But that's not fair to those people. So anyone who wants to subject themselves to more of your "effective insults" is welcome to follow your invitation to your blog; you're done here.